A scientist digs in the rubble of the earth and finds a round, oblong stone that is smooth and has a groove circling the middle. He has no doubt but that it was shaped by a primitive man. He is convinced that it was attached to a stick by a leather thong and used as a hammer or a weapon. Similarly, he finds a flat stone with a sharp edge and is sure that it was made by a "Stone Age" man for use as a knife or a scraper. Or, a small piece of sharp flint shaped like an arrowhead convinces him that it was designed by man to use on the tip of an arrow or a spear. Such purposeful, designed things, the scientist concludes, are not products of chance.The work reflects the worker. These tools and weapons are crude. Hence, their makers are considered primitive, for apes do not make weapons, and those of modern man are of ingenious design. So the scientist places the man who made the stone items in a stone age, and speculates that his appearance and brainpower must be somewhere between ape and modern man. Hence, he envisions a stoop-shouldered, low-browed, shuffling, hairy ape-man. The scientist sees the worker through his works, and judges his qualities from his works.But why do such scientists abandon their own logic? When it comes to the teeming plant and animal life found on the earth, most scientists reverse themselves on their view that design requires a designer. Of far greater complexity than crude stone tools are the simplest of organisms. Even the single-celled protozoan cannot be considered simple. For within that single cell it has the capacity for performing all the body functions that are cared for by the many organs of a vertebrate. In itself it is a complex organism. Evolutionary scientists insist that such complex organisms had no designer but popped into existence by chance. In comparison, it would be easier for crude stone tools to be formed by a landslide or a rushing stream, or even simplicity itself for a rock house to be built by an avalanche of boulders than for a single living cell to form from non-living chemicals. When it comes to the most complexly designed creations in the universe, is it emotional prejudice that causes many intelligent persons to abandon their logical rule that purposeful work reflects the qualities of an intelligent worker? The Bible agrees with their rule, but they shy away from the Bible's application of it: "His invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship." (Romans 1:20) Furthermore, the Bible says at Hebrews 3:4: “Of course, every house has been constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God.” They would never accept chance as the maker of a crude stone tool, but they readily embrace it as the creator not only of protozoa but of all life on earth, man included! They balk at perceiving in these marvels of design the great Designer and Creator of the universe.
Flash,I like your way of looking at things. The first paragraph I thought you'd say they were made by Boy Scouts on a camping trip! Becky
This post posits a clever and interesting analogy, but one that's similar to the "If we can put a man on the moon, then why can't we cure the common cold?" conundrum. Because, one class of problem doesn't necessaily shed light on the other class of problem.We have a long, recorded, oral, written, and present-day history and accounts of the making of primitive tools that are similar to "prehistoric" tools. We can go to South America or New Guinea and see similar tools being made today. We can, by studying the methods, even make the tools ourselves--I made an obsidian arrowhead in Boy Scouts using the same methods the Indians in Northern California used.But there is not similar empirical histories of how God "designed" life, just that he created various life forms to be fruitful and multiply, or propagate via seeds. There is a source that tells us this, the Bible, which is a collection of other works and in this, there is some validity of sources supporting other sources. But this doesn't make it true or factual.Primitive tools have been made that were indeed actual use of, or improvements on, stones, sticks, and shells that were given a particular shape through natural processes--a seashell can have a sharp edge and two of them can be used as tweezers. Obsidian shards are quite sharp.But, evolution does not say that a single living cell formed from non-living chemicals! There are many intermediary steps from one to the other, not to mention billions of years. Life did not just pop "into existence by chance" in one step in one nanosecond under the schema of cosmology or abiogenesis. If autocatalytic chemicals are put in reaction, they will form pulsating rectangles, circles, and triangles. Some will cycle between different geometric shapes. Does this imply a designer? Do intricate snowflakes imply unique designs by a Designer for each of the billions and billions of snowflakes that have fallen? Non-living molecules form three dimensional shapes based upon their environment and the charges of the consituent atoms. These are very intricate too--does this require a designer? The point is that these examples, which we can see and create ourselves in the case of new molecules, either don't require a designer at all, or design that is nowhere near the omnipotence of God.A philosophical problem with designers is "who designed the Designer?" For if the Designer's works must be seen to require a designer to understand or rationalize their complexity, then the Designer must be even more complex and thus require an even greater Designer.Since we supposedly have this huge brain capacity that we're not using but are learning how to use, I resist leaping to the easy conclusion that a god or God must have created x, y, z simply because at the present time, I don't understand how it could be otherwise. Historically, gods or God have been the explanation for many natural phenomena by people--until they found out otherwise. This trend continues today ...
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |